Chaotic neutral semi-antagonist motivations
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
Zelda Themelin
First Post
How about someone that wants to be seen as hero. He has lot of personality issues, but is smart, cunning and rich. So after seeing PC:s (the Heores) do things he wants to be one who "solves it", "beats them to it" and he even ruins clues for party and things that might help them. He doesn't see the harm he does with this.
Maybe someone like that rich hacker dude from Revenge. He has all this money, and still people don't really like having him around.
He might also be secretly compiting about love of npc who has crush (maybe single sided) for pc. So jealosity might also be in question.
Maybe someone like that rich hacker dude from Revenge. He has all this money, and still people don't really like having him around.
He might also be secretly compiting about love of npc who has crush (maybe single sided) for pc. So jealosity might also be in question.
Nytmare
David Jose
Greed is the first thing that pops into my mind.
Robin Hood esque half orcish ranger. Someone trying to take advantage of both sides for their own selfish reasons.
It makes sense from the alignment axis end of things as well. Two lawful groups that are good/evil opposed dealing with a third group that's chaotic. Making them chaotic good just builds the possible bond with the PC group.
Robin Hood esque half orcish ranger. Someone trying to take advantage of both sides for their own selfish reasons.
It makes sense from the alignment axis end of things as well. Two lawful groups that are good/evil opposed dealing with a third group that's chaotic. Making them chaotic good just builds the possible bond with the PC group.
Mr. Wilson
Explorer
I can't be the first person to think of Capt. Jack Sparrow can I?
I mean, he's amoral, greedy, disliked by the good guys, and and hated by the bad guys.
I also am I big fan of the Anon analogy, and will steal it for my upcoming sandbox game. Why do we screw with adventurers? For the Lols.
I mean, he's amoral, greedy, disliked by the good guys, and and hated by the bad guys.
I also am I big fan of the Anon analogy, and will steal it for my upcoming sandbox game. Why do we screw with adventurers? For the Lols.
Going to take off on this. Semi-spoilers.
Omar was a thief, a rough-and-tumble, intelligent and code-bound individual. His 'code' pretty much can be held to a mix of a.) Don't trust authorities, b.) Solve your own problems, and c.) It's all in the Game.
The Bad Guys have convinced this guy that the Party is the cause of some horrible thing that has happened to them, even tagging party members as being 'in on it'. Omar was an ambush predator, using disguises and cons to get into where he needed to be and then proceeding to lay out a very high level of firepower to deliver on his needs.
I think a Druid just sort of plays a weird spot there. But that is of course looking at my own perception as really I wanna do a Fantasy version of the Wire.
In essence I'm seeing either an Omar type or....
He plays way below his paygrade and could really become a thorn in the party's side at a later date. He's in it for the lulz as some have stated, but he also has an agenda that doesn't make itself immediately known. He's been a Good Guy but he's gotten so damned tired of the fight between Good and Evil, so tired of the constant pull between the two sides, and would rather have his own weird sense of control and manipulation as he moves forward. A complete bad-penny scenario, and is in it to win it.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
Last edited:
RangerWickett
Legend
Ooh, Omar from The Wire or . . . that trickster guy from Supernatural.
I think I could pull off the latter, so I'm going to swing for the fences and try to be cool enough to make the former work.
These have been some great suggestions.
I think I could pull off the latter, so I'm going to swing for the fences and try to be cool enough to make the former work.
These have been some great suggestions.
Similar Threads
